1. Motor Interference on Memory Tasks
Brandy Johnson

2. Overview Interference Competing Processes Nouns and Verbs
Current Study
For this particular experiment, we’re interested in motor interference for nouns and verbs on memory tasks.
Before I discuss the methods and results, it’s necessary to review some of the key components of our study: Interference, competing processes that contribute to interference, and encoding nouns and verbs
Discussing those specific features will enable you to understand our research question and expand your knowledge of potential contributions to theories of embodied cognition.
CLICK TWICE

3. Interference Memories are verbal representations of concepts
Working Memory and Interference
Many cognitive theories propose that memories are verbal representations of concepts. Support for this comes from a number of studies that show memory interference when people are asked to perform a verbal task concurrently with memory processing. CLICK TWICE
Most, if not all, of us are familiar with Baddeley’s Working Memory Model. We know that the Central Executive is the controlling attentional system that supervises and coordnates the slave systems (phono/articulatory loop, sketchpad). The phonological loop manipulates speech based information and the visuospatial sketchpad manipulates visual images.
Memory interference occurs when people are asked to perform a concurrent task that interferes with the coordination of processes (I.e., a central executive task). Most disruptive consequences on memory performance are typically located within phonological and executive components of the model.
CLICK
So what is interference?
Baddeley’s Working Memory Model

4. Interference What is interference? The Brown-Peterson Paradigm
Rapid forgetting of small amounts of information, provided that a participant is briefly distracted (Peterson & Peterson, 1959)
Competing processes
Bjork,1989
Doing two things at one time can cause problems. Sometimes the problems are obvious, for instance, patting your head and rubbing your stomach. In other situations, the interference is more subtle. CLICK
Theories of interference were introduced after Brown and Peterson devised procedures that displayed rapid forgetting of small amounts of information when a participant is briefly distracted. This theory was derived from the Peterson Task.
The Peterson Task involved presenting three consonants (TDM) followed by three numbers (483). The participant had to repeat the number and then proceed to count backwards from it in threes until given a recall signal. At this point, the participant would be asked to recall the three consonants. Consequently, the participants rapidly forgot the letters.
Interference occurs when a particular memory trace is disrupted by another trace.
A relatable example would be you and a friend attend a party and someone introduces themselves, tells you their name, but then ask what program you’re in. You briefly chit chat, turn to introduce your friend and realize that you have completely forgotten the name of this new person.
CLICK
Another example of interference was presented in Bjork’s study where participants were presented with a list of words to be remembered – half were told that they were presented the list in error and then told to forget it. All participants then received a second list, and were asked recall with words from both lists or only words from list 2. When asked to recall both lists, participants in the “forget” condition recalled more words from list 2 and less of list 1. Also, when asked to recall list 2 ONLY, those in the “forget” condition recalled the highest number of words – suggesting that instruction forget successfully reduced any interference.
The results imply that one task may interfere or suppress the ability to adequately perform another. The stronger trace of the two might win the competition by masking over the other task.

5. Motor Interference?
Cognitivism: major philosophical background for psychology
No Motor Interference
Most theories of cognition suggest that motor activity is a separate cognitive process from memory
Embodied Cognition
Motor Interference
Cognition is for the purpose of bodily action in the environment.  Therefore, the processes that guide perception and action are also used to construct concepts.
CLICK
We want to know if motor processes will interfere with memory performance.
There are two broad perspectives on whether or not you’ll get motor interference. One these is cognitivism.
Cognitivism is the major philosphical background for psychology. Majority of theories in psychology come from cognitivism – and under the view of cognitivism, there is currently an absence of motor processing influence in memory interference.
Most theories of cognitivism suggest that motor activity is a separate cognitive process from memory.
There are recent conceptualizations that put motor activity at the core of cognitive processing. By this view, called Embodied Cognition, perceptual and motor processes are involved in memory processing.
The definition of embodied cognition: Cognition is for the purpose of bodily action in the environment. Therefore, the processes that guide perception and action are also used to construct concepts.
Thus, engaging in motor activity during memory encoding might produce the same type of interference effects described in previous research using verbal and central executive tasks.

6. Nouns and Verbs Warrington and McCarthy, 1987
Verb meanings – Motor Modality
Noun meanings – Visual Modality.
Pulvermuller, Lutzenberger, and Preissl, 1999
Provide information about specific cognitive neuronal processes
Found cortical differences between nouns and verbs
For the present experiment, we choose to look at the differences in memory for nouns and verbs because there is reason to suspect that recalling verbal information is more closely related to motor processes.
CLICK
According to Warrington and McCarthy, the meaning of most verbs is related to the motor modality, while the meaning of most concrete nouns is related to the visual modality. Processing of these words should, therefore, involve the motor and visual cortices respectively.
Based on this proposal by Warrington and McCarthy, Pulvermuller and his collegues empirically and neurally investigated whether processing nouns and verbs led to associations involving the visual and motor modalties. In their experiment, participants were asked to rate motor and visual associations elicited from a presentation between nouns and verbs. Afterwards, they performed an EEG experiment using nouns and verbs rated with strong associations to gather specific information about the cortical locations of these processes.
All noun stimuli referred to animals, plants and large man made objects. All verbs referred to motor activities that could be performed by humans.
They found data consistent with their hypothesis: Verbs elicited stronger electrocortical activity in or close to the motor and premotor cortices while nouns activated primary and higher order visual cortices.
Now I’ll get into our study

7. Experimental Design Within Groups 10 nouns and 10 verbs Free Recall
Item Type
Nouns
Verbs
Digit Monitoring
None
Concurrent Task
Finger Tapping
Within Groups
10 nouns and 10 verbs
Free Recall
DV: proportion of correct memory recall
Our study was a within subjects design. In each of three conditions, participants studied an intermixed list of 10 nouns and 10 verbs. Each list of items was presented on a computer screen one-at-a-time. After studying each list, participants recalled as many items as they could by typing their responses on the keyboard.
Participants studied each list while engaging in one of three concurrent tasks: None (which was only a control task), Digit Monitoring (a central executive task) and Tapping computer key at a given rate (motor task). The order of concurrent tasks was randomized across participants.
Dependent Measure was the proportion of correct memory recall
CLICK

8. Methods Example of Stimuli Nouns Pen Paper Bell Pencil Candy Tissue
Yarn Article
Verbs
Snap Stretch
Push Strike
Lift Kick
Swing Touch
Here’s an example of our stimuli
Parsimonious Nouns and Verbs

9. Methods Control Central Executive Task Motor Task Present Word List
Free Recall
Central Executive Task
Digit Monitoring
Motor Task
Finger Tap
Control – simple. Pretty much a free recall task. 1) Present word list, 2) Each word on screen for 4 sec, 3) once all 20 words are presented, participants engages in free recall
Central Executive Task – Present word list, and the participant also listened to a string of digits. each digit is said every 2 seconds, and the participant is asked to raise their hand if they hear 3 odd digits in a row. There is a camera in the room, so the experimenter shadows the participant to make sure they’re raising their hand at the appropriate times and understands the task. 3) Once all 20 words have been presented, the participant engages in free recall
Motor Task – Presented the word list, but asked to tap their finger on the keyboard while viewing the words. Participant must tap their finger between 250 and 500 ms. If they tap slower or faster than the set rate, they’ll hear a tone. They must tap at a constant rate. Tap errors are recorded. Once all 20 words have been presented, the participant engages in free recall.

10. Hypothesis We expect interference on the central executive task.
We predict that verbs should have higher interference in the finger tap (motor) condition.
There will be no difference between nouns and verbs in the other two conditions (control and monitoring).
CLICK
We expect interference on the central executive task. Previous studies have already demonstrated this effect many times.
We predict that verbs should have a higher interference than nouns in the finger tap condition.
There will be no difference between nouns and verbs in the other two conditions (control and monitoring)

11. Results
We ran a Repeated Measures ANOVA for Task vs. Word and found a significant interaction in the Finger Tap Condition.
The finger tapping condition was the only condition that produced a difference between nouns and verbs. The finger tapping manipulation reduced the memory for verbs relative to control.
Digit monitoring produced lower performance for both nouns and verbs due to interference.

12. Conclusion Processing verbs involves motoric processing.
Embodied Cognition
Consistent with other action based interference effects
We conclude that processing verbs involves moTORic processing.
This further adds to evidence that the semantic difference between objects and actions are ultimately related to motor systems in the brain.
It also provides additional evidence consistent with other paradigms of that demonstrate embodied cognition.

13. Conclusion Glenberg and Kaschak, 2002
Action Sentence Compatibility Effect (ACE)
Sensible/ Nonsense Sentence
IV: Implied direction of sensible sentences
Away or Toward
IV: Response button “near” or “far”
DV: Latency for “yes” responses
Interaction between type of sentence and response button position
Glenberg and Kaschak are currently investigating direct implications for embodied cognition. I’ll give you an example of what they’re doing.
They’re looking at a new phenomenon associated with language comprehension called the Action Sentence Compatibility Effect.
CLICK
In this study, participants were presented with sentences and asked to determine whether each sentence made sense. An example of a sensible sentence was “Open the drawer.” A non sensible sentence would be “boil the air”
The sensible sentences implied a direction of action in the sentences. Either towards the participant or Away.
CLICK TWICE
The participants responded to a response box. Explain the response box. Yes was either near or far
They found that when the sentence implied direction away from the body, the participant would response faster when the button was away from the body. If the sentences implied direction toward the body, the participant would response faster if the button was near.
They found an interaction between the type of sentence and response button position
To tie this all up – the interference we found is a more general effect of the involvement of motor or action processing in memory. In the Glenberg study, their theories are applied to conceptual knowledge.

14. Questions, Comments, Suggestions
Thanks!
Questions, Comments, Suggestions